I hope you don’t mind this nitpick, Bricker …
Why “Earth-Luna”? Shouldn’t it be parallel?
Earth-Moon
Terra-Luna
Gaea-Selene
Terra Mater (Tellus)-Diana
Surya-Chandra
Good point. I suppose I reject “Earth-Moon,” because the subject under discussion was moons, and it seemed confusing to merely distinguish between a moon and the Moon. I’m fine with Terra-Luna, though.
Bill half remembered something about the moon being important to the development of life on Earth. We’re a special case in our solar system.
Ergo, Christ is Lord.
It could, but it could just as easily be “Earth-Moon”. Because “Earth” is not a generic name for a planet, “Earth” isn’t ambiguous. Whereas “moon” is the generic name for a moon, so you need to disambiguate it (thanks Wikipedia for that cromulent word!)
But more seriously, I have often thought that the fact that the moon and the sun are nearly the same size as viewed from Earth seems far too coincidental to be coincidental. But then I realize that in any one random configuration, there are billions of chances for those coincidences to pop up, so some of them are bound to even if the chance for any one of them is slim.
The orbit’s elliptical, so sometimes the moon appears a bit smaller than the sun; you can see this in annular eclipses. A long time ago, the moon appeared much larger than the sun, and a long time from now it’ll appear much smaller, due to its slowly expanding its orbit by robbing us of our precious rotational energy and accelerating.
None of the attempted nitpicking in this thread changes the fact that using the existence of tides to prove the existence of some god or other is really, really stupid. Where the center of mass in an orbital system lies is a distinction that makes a difference to astronomical nomenclature only and doesn’t speak to O’Reilly’s idiocy in any way, shape or form.
Is there a transcript of what the original question was and how he answered it? The video doesn’t really show us what he first said when asked about the tides.
Did he really claim that we don’t know what causes the tides? Really???
But by a remarkable coincidence, the time when the Moon and Sun appear about the same size is just when human civilization happens to be up and running. It would have been wasted on the dinosaurs, just as it will be wasted on the cockroaches a hundred million years hence. 
The claim at issue is that the Earth-Moon combination is unique and thus demonstrates the hand of God by its existence. But if you accept that natural processes can make planets with small moons (like Mars) and dual-dwarf-planets (like Pluto), then why can’t that same process make the Earth and Moon?
There’s no argument that the Earth and Moon are an outlier, some sort of special exception among the bodies orbiting the sun. We’re just coincidentally, but happily, somewhere in the middle.
Because if he admitted something like that, he’d appear weak to his audience, and they wouldn’t trust or believe him after that. He’d rather be wrong and strong, than appear weak. His audience looks for a leader; they don’t seem to care if he leads them further into the land of ignorance.
He also validates their belief, but I think it has more to do with not appearing like a spineless weenie who doesn’t know something.
I’m reminded of the MAS*H episode with Ned Beatty as Fr. Mulcahey’s superior. Beatty’s character (I forget the name) is forceful, and implores Mulcahey to say to the camp: “Follow me!..you see…Follow me! With a bible in one hand and a sword in the other!” Beatty’s character turns out to be wrong in the advice he gave Mulcahey (about writing a letter to a soldier’s family saying the soldier would be okay–instead the soldier died). But it’s the “Follow me!” rhetoric that sticks with me.
Wow, that’s just… astounding. The funny thing is, he really isn’t that stupid. He couldn’t be. But, his is that arrogant. He really thinks that if he can’t remember or explain something that no one can.
Too bad Silverman didn’t challenge him on that. If you watch the video, he sort of, in a passive way, accepts the statement. He says something like “it doesn’t matter if we can’t explain it”. I mean, if O’Reilly had brought up the issue of how life arose, then yeah, we can’t explain it. But the tides? But it is kind of funny to see his reaction when BO first brings up tides in their discussion about whether or not religion is a scam. It’s a sort of: How the fuck did we go from religion being a scam to tides???
“Nearly” wasn’t weaselly enough a word for you? :dubious:
OK, I don’t normally post in the Pit, but since this is a matter of scientific fact: Earth is unique(ish) in having a satellite so large relative to itself, but that does not mean that it has more significant tides than anything else. Both Venus and Mercury have stronger tidal forces acting on them, and in both cases, those tides are also far more significant than Earth’s. On Earth, we have two bodies that cause significant tides, and they’re both of comparable importance: The Sun’s tides are about half as strong as the Moon’s (and the interplay between them is why the tides vary in strength over the course of a month). Mercury and Venus both have only the Sun, but they’re much closer to it, so the Sun’s tides on Venus end up being stronger than the Sun and Moon combined on Earth (and even more so on Mercury, of course).
Venus and Mercury have tides? As in something liquid ebbing and flowing over something solid?
Even discounting the possible case of Pluto, and assuming the uniquness of the Earth-Moon situation, that has nothing to do with demonstrating anything about God.
I mean, Isaac Asimov was one of the strongest atheists ever and he wrote several essays on (what he then thought was) the unique Earth-Moon situation.
Basically, O’Reilly’s argument boils down to the puddle who claims that the only explanation for the fact that the hole in the pavement is exactly the right size for it is that the hole was created by an intelligent designer just for that purpose.
They do react to tidal force, which doesn’t require a liquid medium.
Earth has a lot of satellites, not just the one. Only the one natural satellite. Except let’s not forget Cruithne. Cruithne, Earths "second moon"
I like this a lot.